Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a development opposite his business premises, which he says will cause an impact on his security and amenity. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application on land opposite his business premises. The new development will be very close to the front of Mr X’s property, and he says it will:
• cause significant loss of light;
• increase the risk of crime; and
• encroach private land.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and discussed it with Mr X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report.
5. I gave the Council and Mr X an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this decision and took account of the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

6. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies on the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
7. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
8. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views over another’s land;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
9. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
10. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.
11. In residential environments, councils normally require at least 21 metres between directly facing habitable rooms in dwellings. Habitable rooms include bedrooms, living and dining rooms. Between habitable rooms and blank elevations or elevations that contain only non-habitable room windows (such as bathrooms, kitchens and utility rooms) councils usually require at least 12 metres. An ‘elevation’ is the face or view of it from one side shown in a plan.
12. The courts have made it clear that councils must not ‘fetter their discretion’. This means they should not treat policy and guidance as if it creates binding rules.
13. Generally, planning conditions should not be used to control matters covered by other regulatory requirements, such as those relating to building regulations or environmental protection.

What happened

14. Mr X’s business is in an area of mixed residential and commercial uses. Mr X says the development is not built in accordance with the approved plans. He also says the Council has failed to properly consider:
• the comments from the police about the impact on crime and security;
• building regulations relating to means of fire escape;
• the impact on daylight on neighbouring premises and the development itself;
• parking and amenity space for the development;
• local development plan and London Plan policies;
• saste storage; and
• rights of way and disabled access.
15. His business premises are at the rear of another building, facing towards the neighbouring boundary.
16. The neighbour sought permission for a rear extension similar to others at the rear of nearby buildings.
17. A planning case officer visited the site and wrote a report, setting out their advice and recommendations for the decision-maker. The case officer report included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• a summary of relevant planning history;
• comments from neighbours and other consultees, including the Metropolitan Police;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including;
• the comments from the police relating to crime and security;
• impact on amenity including light and privacy;
• parking and access; and
• waste storage.
• relevant planning policy and guidance, including national planning policy, the London Plan and the local development plan; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
18. The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendations.

My findings

19. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for fault in the decision-making process, and when we find it, we decide whether it caused an injustice to the complainant.
20. I have read Mr X concerns about the approval, but I can see the issues he raises were considered by the Council before it made its decision. As a review body, we do not assess these matters and, in the absence of procedural fault, assert our own opinion on what the outcome should have been.
21. Some of the matters Mr X raised were not for the planning authority to decide. The Council’s planning decision includes an informative explaining that building regulations are not a matter to be decided by a planning authority.
22. In this case, I can see the Council took account of the application plans and other material planning considerations before making its decision. Because the Council followed the decision-making process we would expect, I find no fault in the way its decision was made.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I completed my investigation as I found no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman